Cancer: testing, curing and prevention

New immune system approach (much cheaper than $90,000 for the only approved one giving an average of only 3 months more life):

"...Mayo Clinic investigators and collaborators from the United Kingdom cured well-established prostate tumors in mice using a human vaccine with no apparent side effects. This novel cancer treatment approach encourages the immune system to rid itself of prostate tumors without assistance from toxic chemotherapies and radiation treatments. Such a treatment model could some day help people to live tumor free with fewer side effects than those experienced from current therapies. ..."
More at: http://www.therapeuticsdaily.com/ne...e=789414&contentType=newsarchive&channelID=26

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"... Preclinical and epidemiologic evidence suggest that selenium and vitamin E may reduce risk of prostate cancer. The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) was a prospective randomized placebo-controlled study evaluating the effect of selenium and vitamin E on prevention of prostate cancer. The trial was discontinued following a preplanned interim analysis that demonstrated no benefit of either agent. Indeed, early follow-up (5.5 years) suggested instead an increased risk of prostate cancer following vitamin E treatment, and increased risk of type 2 diabetes following selenium treatment. This paper reports results of the preplanned final follow-up at 7 years.
... Details of test and results given but not posted here - see link. ...

In this {7 -year} follow-up of a randomized, placebo-controlled, blinded study, vitamin E increased the risk of prostate cancer. ..."

From: http://www.oncologystat.com/journal...tamin_E_Cancer_Prevention_Trial_(SELECT).html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"... Data Monitoring Committee (IDMC) has informed the companies of positive results from a planned interim analysis of the Phase 3 AFFIRM trial of MDV3100 in men with advanced prostate cancer previously treated with chemotherapy. MDV3100, the first androgen receptor signaling inhibitor, successfully met the study's pre-specified interim efficacy stopping criteria, demonstrating a clinically meaningful and statistically significant (p < 0.0001) improvement in overall survival compared to placebo. As a result, the IDMC recommended that AFFIRM be stopped early and men who received placebo be offered MDV3100.

As reported by the IDMC, MDV3100 produced a 4.8-month advantage in median overall survival compared to placebo. The estimated median survival for men treated with MDV3100 was 18.4 months compared with 13.6 months for men treated with placebo. MDV3100 provided a 37 percent reduction in risk of death compared to placebo (Hazard Ratio=0.631). ..."

From: http://pharmalive.com/news/index.cfm?articleID=811757&categoryid=9&newsletter=1

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"... men without cancer at baseline who developed distant organ metastases or died from prostate cancer during follow-up among 27, 607 men followed from 1994 to 2008. We also conducted a case-only survival analysis to examine postdiagnostic consumption of these foods and risk of lethal prostate cancer among the 3,127 men initially diagnosed with nonmetastatic prostate cancer during follow-up. In the incidence analysis, we observed 199 events during 306,715 person-years. Men who consumed 2.5 or more eggs per week had an 81% increased risk of lethal prostate cancer compared with men who consumed less than 0.5 eggs per week (HR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.13–2.89; Ptrend: 0.01). In the case-only survival analysis, we observed 123 events* during 19,354 person-years.

There were suggestive, but not statistically significant, positive associations between postdiagnostic poultry (HR ≥ 3.5 vs. <1.5 servings per week: 1.69; 95% CI: 0.96–2.99; Ptrend: 0.07) and postdiagnostic processed red meat (HR ≥ 3 vs. <0.5 servings per week: 1.45; 95% CI: 0.73–2.87; Ptrend: 0.08) and risk of progression of localized prostate cancer to lethal disease. In conclusion, consumption of eggs may increase risk of developing a lethal form of prostate cancer among healthy men. ..."

From: http://cancerpreventionresearch.aac...PR-11-0354v2&submit=Get All Checked Abstracts

*I'm not sure but think for "the case-only survival analysis" they are stating that of the 19,354/14 = 1382 (more, as some died - did not put in their 14 years, so guess 1500 started this study) men initially entering the study without prostate cancer, who developed prostate cancer in the 14 years of the study, 123 of them (the >2.5 egg/wk eaters) died from it. If correct and that is 81% greater than the men with prostate cancer who did not die in the 14 year or died of something else, then 68 men were still surviving their prostate cancer when the study ended even though all 123+68 = 191 men ate > 2.5 eggs/ wk and got PCa were followed.

If all that is correct we can also conclude that in this population approximately 191/1500 = 13% of the men ate >2.5 eggs per week which seems reasonable to me so partially supports the view I expressed about wht they are stating.

 

An excellent article on Broccoli and its effects on Breast & Prostate cancer (if any) at:http://www.pcf.org/site/c.leJRIROrE...isk_Reduction_Broccoli_in_a_Designer_Diet.htm

One thing very unfortunate the article does not discuss is that cooking destroys the active agents. Also its effects in vitro can be considered proven but how much they survied digestion and enter the blood is not known.

 

EZH2 4 u?

 

Just remember, you have an estimated 100,000,000,000,000 cells in your body. What's a billion? Only 1/100,000th of that?

 

and your point is?

BTW, we physicists tend to write 100,000,000,000,000 as E14 and a billion as E9, so yes there raio is E5 as you stated.

 

Perhaps this is how my therapeudic anti-prostate cancer diet works. (It has shown dose effects, etc.):

 

If you look at cancer, in general terms, when cancer forms, the entropy of healthy cells, increase. This is not only reflected in changes within genetics (defects) but also the higher rates of metabolism and duplication, with are the main source of the entropy increase. Since entropy is all about randomizing and increasing the amount of information, I would look at the fundamental question why is there more entropy being generated?

If you look at some treatments, like radiation, that target cancer more than healthy cells, what appears to happen, is the entropy increases in both sets of cells. But since cancer is already at higher entropy, it goes over the hump into disruptive randomization. The healthy cells are pushed up the hump (radiation can also form cancer), but since these healthy cells started with less entropy they don't go over the hump, but randomize to some degree; sick reaction. We are better at fine tuning this.

The opposite approach is to use a treatment that lowers the entropy, so the cancer lowers entropy. This means less metabolism, less reproduction and less randomizations. Healthy cells would also lower entropy, which could impact healing in cases where you may need healthy cells to duplicate. This treatment could not be combined with surgery.

If you look at an immune deficiency, where the immune system can't differentiate to the needs of an immune response, the immune system has been forced into a state of lowered entropy. It retains a useless ordering. It can be described with less functional information since it becomes limited in functionality.

I always come back to water, since this water makes up about 90% of the molecules in the body. Osmosis, which is an activity of water and membranes, can use an entropy increase to generate a directed force. The cancer can muscle its way laterally. High entropy in the water, in turn, can result in the organic molecules also defining more entropy.

Reverse osmosis allows us to use a directed force to lower the entropy of water. I can see a nano-reverse osmosis technique lowering cancer entropy by lowering the local water entropy.

 

I did not read more. I have learned your posts usually are full of BS you created and not worth reading.

In this case, with rare exceptions, the cancer is a increase in entropy. Cancer cells usually are a disorganized mass, not the well functioning, well organized, organ they are destroying. That disorganized mass is how the pathologist recognizes that there is a cancer. The individual cancer cells look like then non-cancer cells but the growing mass of them lacks the functional organization of the organ.

 

This suggests that the mass lacks the same cellular differentiation control found with the healthy tissue, because it is no longer wired into the brain and nervous system, which acts as smart tissue for cellular differentiation control.

Picture an automobile computer, which is wired to all the electronic devices within the car. The computer can tell if the brakes are low and will send a feedback signal to the dashboard telling you what to do; service brakes. In an analogy of cancer, say I cut the control system wire between the brakes and computer. Now the brakes are on their own and will continue to wear, without any warning, causing extended brake damage because the feedback loop is gone. The question I pose is, do cancer masses have a functional connection to the nervous system in proportion to the same organ they come from?

The question becomes how can sensory nerves maintain control over cells when there is not enough expected exchange of organic compounds. The answer has to do with water. Sodium and potassium cations impact water differently. Sodium ions bond to water stronger than water hydrogen bonds to other water molecules. On the other hand, potassium ions bond to water weaker than water hydrogen bonds to other water. Each impacts the global water differently.

Cells accumulate potassium cations since these increase water entropy. If you filled a cell with only sodium ions it would be messed up in a global way since the water would get too organized. Theoretically, sensory nerves should be able to control the relative concentration of sodium and potassium cations, since they absorb sodium ions when firing.

When cells replicate, the membrane potential lowers because extra sodium cations enter the cells. If the local nerve control system is gone, it can't control the sodium flux that helps drive replication.

 

Again this is all I have read, for reasons already stated in post 51, but the brain has essentially no control over cell differentiation and growth in healthy well differentiated tissue. - That control is not entirely understood but certainly it is local and mostly chemical. (It will happen in perti dish, with no brain.) Before making up your BS, read a little so at least it is not so easy to show it is BS.

As slight correction to my too general comments in prior post, I will note that in some few cancer cases the cancer cell does look different under the microscope. For example, most types of kidney cancer cells have way too much fat inside them. They become nearly transparent. Are called "clear cells." About 80% of kidney cancers are of the clear cell type.

 

from 3 years ago:

Report is free, but link may not work for you - I am registered reader and had to sign in.